Amazon Seeks Recusal of FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan in Antitrust Investigations of Company (wsj.com) 83
Amazon.com filed a request with the Federal Trade Commission seeking the recusal of new Chairwoman Lina Khan from antitrust investigations of the company, in light of her extensive past criticisms of the company. From a report: "Given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon, and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws, a reasonable observer would conclude that she no longer can consider the company's antitrust defenses with an open mind," Amazon said in a 25-page recusal motion filed with the FTC.
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words they have no valid legal defense.
They're hoping to get somebody with zero experience instead of somebody who knows what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words they have no valid legal defense.
They're hoping to get somebody with zero experience instead of somebody who knows what they're doing.
Nah, Amazon just misses their best bud Ajit Pai(d)
Re: (Score:2)
That's FCC not FTC.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Ashit Pile was dumped?
What happened? I'm gone half a year and the world turns better?
I dunno if I should feel insulted...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... but it was just the 46th, nothing big and fancy... but thanks for noticing.
Though it's kinda creepy, how the hell do you know my birthday?
Re: (Score:2)
FTC is not FCC. I know, they are confusingly similar, but one handles Trade while the other handles Communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly, I don't care what he was fired from as long as he's gone. :)
Re: (Score:2)
What? Ashit Pile was dumped?
What happened? I'm gone half a year and the world turns better?
In other news: Donald Trump is no longer president.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard they wanted to make a comback special, but they're still working on the funding.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's how Microsoft got off Scot-free.
Re: (Score:1)
Or they have a valid concern that someone with a documented [nytimes.com] history of anti-Amazon publications [archive.is] can be impartial in any decisions involving the company.
Hey, Ajit Pai was considered a shill for Big Tech because he used to work for Verizon, so what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?
Re:In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
I know you are being sarcastic, but having people from the industry regulating the industry is simply letting the fox guard the henhouse. It's dumb as fuck. Regulations should be based on the obvious harms an industry creates, which are, shockingly, much more visible to outsiders than to insiders.
Don't worry, though, these industries will still be well represented in any decisions about regulation. That's what they pay millions to lobbyists for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
I know you are being sarcastic, but having people from the industry regulating the industry is simply letting the fox guard the henhouse. It's dumb as fuck. Regulations should be based on the obvious harms an industry creates, which are, shockingly, much more visible to outsiders than to insiders.
Don't worry, though, these industries will still be well represented in any decisions about regulation. That's what they pay millions to lobbyists for.
So we should have a high school drop out in charge of the department of education?
Re: (Score:2)
We sure as shit shouldn't have someone who is a big-wig in the for profit education industry in charge of the department of education. I mean, I get that you are trying to present a counter example, but it's pretty simple and it all boils down to conflict of interest. No conflict of interest? No problem. Even the appearance of conflict of interest? Well, there's tons of other folks who are equally knowledgeable, so maybe we'll just give you a pass, thanks anyway and good luck with your money addiction and s
Re: (Score:2)
Even the appearance of conflict of interest? Well, there's tons of other folks who are equally knowledgeable, so maybe we'll just give you a pass, thanks anyway and good luck with your money addiction and shady morality.
Why doesn't that apply to Khan? Do you really believe that working for a non-profit company or acedemia allows you to have no conflicts of interest?
If she was teaching at the Heritage College, would you feel the same?
Re: (Score:1)
There's an inherent conflict of interest for employees of any right wing school or think tank. They don't want people to learn critical thinking, they want brainwashed useful idiots full of knowledge but unable to think for themselves. Look at that ultra wealthy cunt Betsy DeVos, and the damage she's done to our educational system. Would you try to defend her, a billionaire heiress? She despises poors like you. You know that, right? She wants you and all your descendants to be a permanent underclass.
Working
Re: (Score:2)
You have ruled out people working for corporations, and now you ruled out people that went to "right wing" schools or think tanks.
How do you know you can think for yourself or are open to new ideas if you see bias in everything that disagrees with you?
Re: (Score:3)
Being successful in business allows you to make good decisions in all fields, for example it lets you cure cancer with dietary supplements and juices. Becoming the richest man in the world lets you hang out with pedophiles without getting divorced.
Re: (Score:3)
Jack Welch was considered a success at GE. He then retired and the company imploded as a direct result of his ineptitude. The former whiner-in-chief was considered a success in business, but he had no idea how to staff an administration and his business track record was dismal, 6-7 bankruptcies and has the attention span of squirrel on its third cup of coffee.
Re: (Score:3)
Jack Welch was considered a success at GE.
If you ever work at a company that decides to follow the Jack Welch method, find another job quickly. The only way he knew how to motivate people was by threatening to fire them.
Threats are not leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
The former whiner-in-chief was considered a success in business, but he had no idea how to staff an administration and his business track record was dismal, 6-7 bankruptcies and has the attention span of squirrel on its third cup of coffee.
I would argue that his followers and supporters considered him a success in business. His 6-7 bankruptcies clearly indicated otherwise. One worrying aspect of his presidency was that his businesses were funded by foreign powers and could be influenced by foreign powers because the vast majority of his loans were from overseas banks in China and Russia. These banks are heavily controlled by their governments. The reason was that US banks would not lend him any money based on his track record.
Re: (Score:2)
Being successful in business implies a certain level of competency in that field...enforcing both consumer protection and fair competition
Of course, the executives at Microsoft knew so much about business, they completely understood what fair competition meant [wikipedia.org].
And of course, Andrew Carnegie was so successful at business that he knew exactly how to stop unions [existentialcomics.com]. Fairly.
And of course, Tony Hayward was so successful at business, he knew exactly what it took to protect the environment and consumers [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
This person is a 32-year old with no business experience, with her work being just in academia, left-wing think-tanks, and a stint working for Rohit Chopra at the FTC.
Let me see if I understand: Law Professor Lina Khan has no business experience therefore her opinions on legal matters like antitrust should disqualify her from overseeing any legal investigation of Amazon. Do I have that right?
Lots of idealism and fluff, but no actual real-world experience, and I'd go as far as stating that her appointment to FTC chairman was made on the basis of cronyism and minority box-checking.
I do not consider a law professor at Columbia Law School to be "idealism and fluff"
As much as I dislike Amazon for some of their practices and how they're essentially dominating the online marketplace, I agree with their arguments for lack of impartiality.
I am sorry but has Amazon been fined or sanctioned yet by a judge? No. Amazon is scared of her that the FTC would investigate them with her at the helm. As head of the FTC, she would not actually do an
Re: (Score:2)
No. She has a demonstrable bias against Amazon based on her prior 'body of work'.
1) The OP's exact criticism of her was she had no business experience. 2) So what? She's not a judge who needs to demonstrate impartiality. At best she would be prosecutor. 3) Are her criticisms of Amazon fair? I can criticize big tobacco for having products that are known to cause cancer; does that mean I can never regulate any tobacco products in any capacity?
The fact she never had any actual experience in the field she's in charge of regulating as the chairman of the FTC is just another reason why this was really an activist appointment.
One of the main criticisms of high level government current posts is that the persons are entrenched in the fields that they are supposed to regulat
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really just that, the problem is that if her work can be shown as having an anti-Amazon bias then it means the FTC's case will get absolutely crushed in court when the inevitable appeal comes around.
First of all, how would the FTC's case be crushed in court soley based on her bias? It seems your premise is that her bias is the entire case against Amazon and that there is no evidence otherwise. Again, she may have a bias but are her criticisms fair? Second as head of the FTC, it is highly unlikely she would investigate Amazon herself; the FTC has a whole department for investigations.
So as much as it might be enjoyable to see Amazon get their come uppance by an FTC led by someone that flat out hates them,
Again you do not answer the question: If her criticisms are fair then what is the problem? A surgeon general can be extre
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would demonstrate prejudice,
First of all you have to establish there was prejudice not insinuate that prejudice exists before any investigations begin. That is rather circular logic.
at best it would force the whole case to be re-evaluated from scratch with independent investigators, which is really all Amazon has said it wants anyway - it's not asking for it to be thrown out, it's just asking to make sure the investigation is definitely fair.
1) No investigation currently exists. 2) As head of the FTC, Lina Khan would not be doing any investigations; there is a whole department at the FTC that does investigations. 3) How would that case be thrown out in a case that does not exist yet when Khan does not handle the investigation?
I think you just don't really understand how these investigations work, they have a legal obligation to be unbiased; any evidence to the contrary, if she puts one foot wrong, makes one off the cuff comment even out of context that can be tied to what already looks like an appearance of bias then the whole case will be a waste of millions of tax payers money.
I don't think you understand that the head of the FTC does not do in
Re: (Score:2)
I like that you're slowly coming round to my argument without having the maturity to admit it. You've gone on a full diatribe about how she's not involved in the investigations, which is precisely what I said.
I do not like how you seemingly state your premise as true then all your flawed logic flows from that first point. Your point is that Khan having expressed a legal opinion in a law journal means that any investigation by the FTC which she will not have a role must then be discarded. Do you understand how asinine that sounds? "The head coach of the other team does not like us therefore he cannot be allowed to play against us or coach against us." is basically your entire point.
Yes, thank you, you agree with me.
No I did not. Strawman argument
Re: (Score:1)
Conservatives by definition believe (and hope) that things will either stay the same, or return to a utopian status quo that didn't necessarily even exist.
This never happens, of course, but fortunately, conservatives also don't seem to mind being wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
What a concidence that all the people you politically disagree with are hampered by severe mental handicaps that prevent them from ever being right about anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro tip: when someone agrees with you, don't flame them.
Re:In other words opinions don't have to be "fair" (Score:2)
She felt amazon was violating antitrust rules. She was appointed to FTC and is now going after them. There's no requirement for her to be fair -- it was her pre-appointment opinion that got her the job because those appointing her thought she made good points and agreed w/her.
Amazon is complaining because she also is likely to know what she is doing to investigate them and determine remedies.
It's a bit like a criminal caught at the scene being prosecuted by those who saw him at the scene. So Sad!
Re: In other words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. The real "in other words" is, "We attempted bribery, er, um, we mean contributions, of course, but payment was refused. We need to place someone pliable to monetary compensation for looking the other way in this position."
I will agree they'd prefer someone with no experience, but the real requirement is somebody that will just accept payment and move on.
I agree (Score:1)
There are definitely things that Amazon can and should be sued for, but not the speculative crap she talks about. This woman hates Amazon and peddles BS about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices. Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price of that item and prevent consumers from accessing a cheaper product. Has that happened? It can't happen.
The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can still emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers. I mean, if a charger costs $1000 from Amazon .. word that somebody else can pro
Re: (Score:2)
She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices.
Antitrust concerns 101. Your point is as silly as saying the FDA is engaging by "speculative crap" when they require testing because "drugs may show adverse reactions".
Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price of that item and prevent consumers from accessing a cheaper product. Has that happened? It can't happen.
Again, Antitrust 101. And it has happened. See the entire history of antitrust. What you seem to miss is that the price of such a product is more than the market allows by artificial means. The product may still be affordable but artificially increased.
The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can still emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers.
Again missed the point. If Amazon controls the distribution of USB chargers, they would cos
Re: (Score:2)
Besides oil and certain mined commodities, whose price is entirely dictated by government policy and regulations (they won't allow unlimited drilling), name some product or service that was once available cheap but is now expensive thanks to being monopolized?
Re: (Score:2)
Besides oil and certain mined commodities, whose price is entirely dictated by government policy and regulations (they won't allow unlimited drilling), name some product or service that was once available cheap but is now expensive thanks to being monopolized?
Again, you seem not to misunderstand what antitrust is. It is not that 1 company controls 100% of a market and raises the price to a bazillion times more expensive. The factor is whether the prices has been inflated by artificial means and not by market conditions. For example, DRAM price fixing [wikipedia.org] where multiple RAM makers colluded to fix prices of DRAM around the year 2000. The effect is that consumers paid more for DRAM than they should have paid had the price been determined by the market. The case was not
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I remember that fake DRAM collusion scandal of 2003 well, DRAM prices dropped like crazy in the 1990s and early 2000s, and after that price-fixing scandal prices stopped dropping or dropped much slower -- explain that. Reference (look at figure 1 and 2, note the steepness of the decline prior to 2002 when they were "busted"): https://aiimpacts.org/trends-i... [aiimpacts.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you still can't explain how the rate of DRAM prices dramatically slowed down after the anti-trust cases, nor can you explain how the prices fell?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you still can't explain how the rate of DRAM prices dramatically slowed down after the anti-trust cases, nor can you explain how the prices fell?
What part of "antitrust is not only about 1 company raising prices 100x" is difficult to understand? It seems you are unwilling to acknowledge or think outside of your example. To review, multiple DRAM makers colluded to fix prices. Price fixing does not mean prices always go up. Price fixing does not mean that price never changes. In this case, the makers ARTIFICIALLY set the prices by agreeing with each other . They did not let the market decide what prices should be. They were caught and fined.
Re: (Score:2)
if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can still emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers
You've a lot to learn about how business works, kid.
No one can stop a small shop from opening up next to a Walmart, either. But the ability to do so doesn't mean anything when Walmart starts selling every item that shop sells for a loss and undercuts their business to the point where they can't make a profit.
Amazon have been caught on multiple occasions abusing their position as both marketplace and effective manufacturer in ways that may/do violate antitrust laws. There is such a thing as a de facto monopo
Re: (Score:2)
She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices. Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price on that item. Has that happened? It can't happen.
The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers. I mean, if a charger cost $1000 from Amazon .. word that somebody else can provide that for $10 will easily spread. Amazon is not able to bl
Re: (Score:2)
She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices.
This is true of any monopoly. So what?
Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price on that item.
Again, true of any monopoly
Has that happened?
Historically yes. See the history of antitrust
It can't happen.
And yet it has happened.
The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers.
First of all this pricing concern is Antitrust 101. Second the point is that if Amazon controls the distribution of chargers it is not about who makes chargers so you missed the point. The consumer will have to pay what Amazon wants not what the market allows. Third, you are countering her speculation with your own speculation.
I mean, if a charger cost $1000 from Amazon .. word that somebody else can provide that for $10 will easily spread.
Did she cite this example or are you making this
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point of courts. Turning "I know what you did last night" to "now I got camera proof of what you did last night".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't notice Amazon or other companies complain about bias when the bias is in their favour.
makes no sense (Score:3)
Re:makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The commission is a law enforcement agency. This is like a defendant complaining that the district attorney suspects them of committing a crime.
The way the commission operates is that it always tries to settle the matter via a *consent decree*, which is a binding *agreement* between the defendant and the commission which is approved of, an enforced by, a federal judge, *who is impartial*. Defendants agree to consent decrees because they do not have to admit criminal liability, and the corrective action in the decree is always more lenient than what they'd have to do if they litigated.
But Amazon doesn't have to accept a consent decree. They can always fight the FTC's findings in court, in front of a judge who will be obligated to be impartial. But if they lose, that impartiality cuts both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
And so (Score:2, Insightful)
Not an unreasonable position. She was in attack dog mode ala politicians seeking power.
Witness some of the responses to this thread as to how effective that was.
Every DA would be excluded with this criteria (Score:4, Insightful)
""Given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon, and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws"
Anytime a DA tried to go after the mafia or any company that has a long history of bad business practices, they could use this argument. That would end up having the worst violators get free passes because its seems like everyone is picking on them. There would be no one left to drive a prosecution.
Re: (Score:3)
Except a DA doesn't campaign on a platform of "I'm going to arrest Joe Smith for stealing $27 from Dollar General". And this is really more like a judge saying something like that while trying to gain office.
People obviously have opinions, but when you sit down to judge somebody else's behavior, you're not supposed to bring all your preconceived notions into play - you are supposed to judge the facts as they are presented. It's not clear that she can do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Agree! So sad that so many people miss the distinction between the might-of-the-Government needing to be fair, vice just agreeing with one side which you favor. Any Government Official needs to be super careful about tainting their impartiality even with statements/actions before they became a Government Official.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Every DA would be excluded with this criteria (Score:2)
Do you see the difference between a judge saying they are tough on crime and a judge repeatedly going on record as saying that oh_my_080980980 is a criminal and needs to be in prison? What about if that judge also had the power to START a new trial on a whim and you (oh_my_080980980) were the defendant? Would you have a problem this that judge being impartial now? Hopefully you see the issue now. Regardless of how this plays out, she is a liability for the FTC. If she does recuse herself and Amazon los
Re: (Score:2)
Except a DA doesn't campaign on a platform of "I'm going to arrest Joe Smith for stealing $27 from Dollar General"
What do you think they mean when they campaign on "I'm gonna clean up the streets!"?
Also, why do you think the FTC chair is an elected position?
And this is really more like a judge saying something like that while trying to gain office.
No, the FTC's power is nothing like a judge's power. They basically can ask nicely, and then sue.
but when you sit down to judge somebody else's behavior, you're not supposed to bring all your preconceived notions into play - you are supposed to judge the facts as they are presented
That's the judge's job when the FTC sues, not the FTC's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the old joke (Score:5, Insightful)
"I request this trial to be struck down!"
"On what grounds?"
"Mostly on the grounds that otherwise I'd lose"
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a trial. It's someone who thinks they ought to go to trial. Then at a trial Amazon will have a chance to make their case to an unbiased judge or jury.
Of course, the prosecutor is always biased.
I get it. (Score:2)
She probably shouldn't be chairwoman of the investigation. She has come with a predetermined outcome and she'll find her way to it.
Look at those running the Arizona recount. if you didn't like that, you shouldn't like this.
Re: (Score:2)
You might as well argue the opposite too... amazons lawyers should recuse themselves from the defense because they come with a predetermined position ... that amazon isn't guilty of anything ever. Surely we agree that's ridiculous?
I agree the chairwoman shouldn't be the JUDGE. That should go to an impartial person as best as possible, but to argue that government agencies shouldn't be able to investigate companies they think broke the law... because thinking the companies broke the law makes them biased ..
Re:I get it. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem in these cases is that the FTC/FCC has its own judicial system and thus the head of the agency can make unilateral decisions for regulation and enforcement of regulations
Which are subject to review by Congress and the Judiciary.
Look at the ATF for example, they're just pushing through regulation after regulation on guns and accessories without ANY authorization from Congress
No, Congress gave them authorization to come up with regulations. They don't have to run every regulation by Congress, because Congress told the ATF it didn't have to.
and when Congress, even with bipartisan support, pushes back, they simply ignore the lawmakers.
Because a Congressperson saying "I don't like this regulation" is nothing but theater.
Congress can, at any time, pass a law that overrides the ATF's regulations...or even dissolve the ATF entirely. The reason those Congresspeople are only complaining about it on TV and not trying to pass any legislation is they don't want to override the ATF. They want to lie to you instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You might as well argue the opposite too... amazons lawyers should recuse themselves from the defense because they come with a predetermined position
A defense attorney isn't expected to be impartial. An investigation is different.
I think she should be a part of the investigation. I don't think she should be the chairwoman.
What does recusal mean? (Score:2)
What are they seeking? To prevent her from being the judge, or trying to silence her?
Because JMHO... Amazon should not be allowed to silence commissioners or keep them from participating in meetings to observe and discuss and assist in investigations. They should only IMO be able to recuse them from voting on or deciding the outcome of the case/investigations / ensure they are not in a position to suppress or warp evidence or materials.
Being against Amazon should not exclude her from being